General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Shadyside Coal Co.

135 S.E. 272, 102 W. Va. 402, 1926 W. Va. LEXIS 46
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 19, 1926
Docket5699
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 135 S.E. 272 (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Shadyside Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Shadyside Coal Co., 135 S.E. 272, 102 W. Va. 402, 1926 W. Va. LEXIS 46 (W. Va. 1926).

Opinion

Litz, President:

Upon application of the plaintiff in an action of inter-pleader instituted before a justice of the peace under Section 151, Chapter 50, Code, this writ of error was awarded to the judgment of the circuit court entered upon its finding in lieu of a jury, dismissing the action.

*403 June 19, 1924, J. M. Hannon purchased a Chevrolet automobile from the Starcher Chevrolet Company, of Grafton, under written contract retaining title in the vendor to secure the payment of deferred purchase money notes. In an action instituted December 15, 1924, before a justice of the peace of Ohio county, the Shadyside Coal Company attached the machine as the property of Hannon. The General Motors Acceptance Corporation filed a petition in the proceeding asserting claim to the automobile as owner of the deferred purchase money notes, secured as aforesaid, theretofore assigned to it by the Starcher Company. The Coal Company answered the petition by denying the right of the plaintiff to maintain the action, on the ground that it was a foreign corporation doing business in the State of West Virginia without having complied with Section 30, Chapter 54, Code, requiring a foreign corporation doing business in the State to file for record in a county in which it does businessl a copy of its charter and certificate from the auditor showing that it has filed with him a copy of its articles of association, as prerequisite to the right of instituting or maintaining any action, suit or proceeding in this State. The dismissal of the action of interpleader by the circuit court resulted from its finding that the plaintiff was doing business in the State within the meaning of Section 30, Chapter 54, Code, it being admitted that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation and" has not complied with the requirements of the statute.

Plaintiff is a New York corporation having its1 principal place of business in the city of New York. It maintains branch offices at Pittsburgh, Pa., Cleveland, Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio, and Washington, D. C., and other places outside West Virginia; furnishing financial assistance to approved distributors and dealers in West Virginia and other States who purchase motor vehicles manufactured by the General Motors Corporation, under three general plans following: One, known as the “Warehouse Plan”, contemplates the storage of motor vehicles in public licensed warehouses selected by the purchasers and approved by plain *404 tiff, until the money advanced by the plaintiff has been fully repaid. The loan is evidenced by the note of the purchaser secured by separate warehouse receipts for each vehicle stored. Upon payment of a sufficient amount to redeem one vehicle the warehouse receipt therefor is deliv1 ered to the purchaser by the local bank designated by the purchaser. The second, known as the “Floor Plan”, contemplates delivery of the vehicles to the purchaser upon his' executing a note, or accepting trade acceptances, for the money advanced by the plaintiff, and signing a trust receipt retaining title as security for the payment of the promissory note or trade acceptances, and providing that the purchaser shall not use the vehicles except for the purpose of display in his show room. The purchaser obtains release of title upon payment to the local bank of the note or trade acceptances.

The third involves the usual conditional sale of motor vehicles by a dealer and assignment by the vendor of the contract and purchase money notes to the plaintiff at one of its established offices as in this case.

The details of operation under the warehouse and floor plans follow:

(1) BILL OF LADING SHIPMENTS UNDER WAREHOUSE PLAN FROM MANUFACTURER TO DISTRIBUTOR:

The manufacturer, holding the application of the distributor for wholesale credit, previously approved by the plaintiff, being instructed by the distributor to ship under said application for credit, ships the motor vehicles to the distributor on order bill of lading, sending to the distributor’s local bank bill of lading, promissory note for 90% of the invoice price, trust receipt and sight draft for 10% of the invoice price plus plaintiff’s charge. On arrival of the motor vehicles the dealer pays the sight draft, signs the note, and the bank delivers the bill of lading to the warehouseman and receives a separate negotiable warehouse receipt for each car. The bank returns the warehouse receipts, promissory notes and proceeds of the sight draft to *405 the manufacturer, who forwards to the plaintiff the note, warehouse receipts' and copy of invoice. After approving them, the plaintiff retains the documents and mails check for the amount of the note, less charges, to the manufacturer.

(2) BILL OP LADING SHIPMENTS UNDER FLOOR PLAN FROM MANUFACTURER TO DISTRIBUTOR:

The manufacturer, holding the application of the distributor for wholesale credit, previously approved by the plaintiff, being instructed by the distributor to ship under said application for credit, ships' the motor vehicles to the distributor on order bill of lading, sending to the distributor’s local bank bill of lading, promissory note for 85% of the invoice price, trust receipt, and sight draft for 15% of the invoice price plus plaintiff’s charge. On arrival of the vehicles the dealer pays the sight draft, signs' the note and trust receipt, and receives the bill of lading; the bank returns the trust receipt, promissory note and proceeds of the sight draft to the manufacturer, who forwards to plaintiff the promissory note, trust receipt and copy of invoice. After approving them the plaintiff returns' the documents and mails the amount of the promissory note, less charges, to the manufacturer.

(3) VEHICLES PURCHASED FROM MANUFACTURER BY DISTRIBUTOR AND DELIVERED AT THE FACTORY UNDER FLOOR PLAN:

The manufacturer holding the application of the distributor for wholesale credit previously approved by the plaintiff, being requested by the distributor to deliver to it vehicles under said application for credit, upon signing a promissory note for 85% of the invoice price, paying 15% thereof plus' plaintiff’s charges, and executing trust receipt, the distributor receives from the manufacturer at its plant possession of the vehicles. Upon receipt from the manufacturer of these documents and approval thereof by the plaintiff, it mails to the manufacturer check for the amount of the note less its charge.

*406 (4) BILL OF LADING SHIPMENT UNDER FLOOR PLAN FROM DISTRIBUTOR TO DEALER:

The distributor holding the application of the dealer for wholesale credit previously approved by the plaintiff, being instructed .by the dealer to ship under said application for credit, ships the motor vehicles to the dealer on order bill of lading, sending to the dealer’s local bank bill of lading, trust receipt, trade acceptances for 85% of the invoice price, and sight draft for 15% of the invoice price plus the plaintiff’s charge. On arrival of the motor vehicles the dealer pays the sight draft, signs the trust receipt, accepts the trade acceptance and receives the bill of lading.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Minnehoma Financial Company v. Van Oosten
198 F. Supp. 200 (D. Montana, 1961)
Samuels v. Mott
29 Misc. 2d 705 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Bahlke v. Byram
78 A.2d 384 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1951)
State Ex Rel. Eaton v. Hirst
79 P.2d 489 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1938)
Miller Brewing Co. v. Capitol Distributing Co.
72 P.2d 1056 (Utah Supreme Court, 1937)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Huron Finance Corp.
262 N.W. 195 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1935)
Industrial Acceptance Corp. v. Haering
253 Ill. App. 97 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1929)
Burlington Savings Bank v. Grayson
254 P. 215 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 S.E. 272, 102 W. Va. 402, 1926 W. Va. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-shadyside-coal-co-wva-1926.